Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

Arghus

As someone who recently had to go through the nightmare of being being evicted - the house we were renting in was part of a big purchase of about twenty houses on one street by one property developer, to be sold to be "renovated", place is still sitting empty months later - and go to through the equal nightmare of finding rental accommodation, I have to say I've a degree of sympathy for what they're protesting about.

Of course I'd have qualms about their methods and I'd wonder what real world effect the occupation will have, but at the same time they are drawing some attention to the fact that it isn't just a case of low levels of construction that are to blame, property hoarding is rife and is having a detrimental effect on Irish society. And it's going to continue, with the full support of the law and a political culture that's slow to do anything about it. Aided and abetted by a lot of the unthinking attitudes on full display here.

As usual there's been the typical pages of tripe posted of people banging on about "hippy scum" and the like. Use your brains you idiots and start living in the real world. The housing situation in this country is a fcking disgrace and it seems like a lot of you, typically, still somehow haven't really grasped it.

gctest50

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

On what are you basing you apparent assumption that it wouldn't work this time?

Little Ms. Benzo and friends

lawred2

whisky_galore wrote: »

People were living in their own sh1te in the 30's in houses that were falling down in many cases. Maybe we have to get to that point before anything is done?

some people will always be incapable of housing themselves

Is housing them in Dublin City Centre at everyone else's expense the solution?

seamus

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

you don't see falling down houses in prime areas in other cities.

Ah, you do.

Asset speculation is as old as humanity, but that doesn't make it OK. It's a scourge of free market principles, and is the cause of virtually every non-war economic crash in history; supply of resources being artificially constricted to drive up prices, then crashing again when everyone realises it's a pyramid scheme.

We should definitely be taxing the ever loving fnck out of it.

If you have a rental property, then there should be a tax on that property which is equivalent to the CSO-calculated price increase for the previous year, plus 10%.
For example, if the price increased by 5% last year, then the tax payable on that property this year is 5.5% of the market value.

If you can prove that it was rented for 10 months of the previous 12, you can claim a 100% exemption. 6 months, you get a 50% exemption.

Pretty straightforward. If you don't want the property anymore and can't sell it or can't afford the hassle, then you can ask the local council to buy it, who'll value it and pay you that value without negotiation.

jam_mac_jam

lawred2 wrote: »

whisky_galore wrote: »

People were living in their own sh1te in the 30's in houses that were falling down in many cases. Maybe we have to get to that point before anything is done?

some people will always be incapable of housing themselves

Is housing them in Dublin City Centre at everyone else's expense the solution?

No, there are more solutions available such as addressing the huge amount of derelict and vacant buildings in the city which would increase housing stock and reduce rent.

lawred2

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No, there are more solutions available such as addressing the huge amount of derelict and vacant buildings in the city which would increase housing stock and reduce rent.

those properties are owned by the state?

jam_mac_jam

seamus wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

you don't see falling down houses in prime areas in other cities.

Ah, you do.

Asset speculation is as old as humanity, but that doesn't make it OK. It's a scourge of free market principles, and is the cause of virtually every non-war economic crash in history; supply of resources being artificially constricted to drive up prices, then crashing again when everyone realises it's a pyramid scheme.

We should definitely be taxing the ever loving fnck out of it.

If you have a rental property, then there should be a tax on that property which is equivalent to the CSO-calculated price increase for the previous year, plus 10%.
For example, if the price increased by 5% last year, then the tax payable on that property this year is 5.5% of the market value.

If you can prove that it was rented for 10 months of the previous 12, you can claim a 100% exemption. 6 months, you get a 50% exemption.

Pretty straightforward. If you don't want the property anymore and can't sell it or can't afford the hassle, then you can ask the local council to buy it, who'll value it and pay you that value without negotiation.

Completely agree with your suggestions.  I don't really understand why when land values and rents are so high there is such a problem in Dublin but there is a lot around.

Zulu

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This. Aldborough House is a good example - look at where it is on Google Maps and tell me it shouldn't be redeveloped into a high density mixed use housing block, not yet another f*cking commercial development.

Well I always felt it was very Wayne manor-esque. My Walter Mitty plan was to win the euromillions, buy it, and set myself up as Batman. But thats shot-to-sh1t now

jam_mac_jam

lawred2 wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No, there are more solutions available such as addressing the huge amount of derelict and vacant buildings in the city which would increase housing stock and reduce rent.

those properties are owned by the state?

I would start with those owned by the state. Then I would introduce incentives to stop derelict and vacant buildings being left to deteriorate.  As you cannot seize private property, obviously.

hatrickpatrick

gctest50 wrote: »

Little Ms. Benzo and friends

In other words the fact that the city has a problem with drugs related crime now that it didn't in the early 20th century?

If we had a functioning justice system, this would not be an issue. And the anti social behaviour thing wouldn't be an issue either. Criminals don't belong in social housing, I agree - they belong in prison.

whisky_galore

lawred2 wrote: »

some people will always be incapable of housing themselves

Is housing them in Dublin City Centre at everyone else's expense the solution?

Hurr durr dey're getting de free houses!

Sleeper12

sexmag wrote:

I'm sorry but how is breaking into a privately owned house raising awareness?

Well you just started a thread that will cover homelessness. You are actually raising awareness by posting. You wouldn't be posting on this subject if they didn't break into the house.

I'm not saying that the are right to do what they are doing but like Apollo House it certainly raises awareness

Sierra Oscar

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Properties that are vacant for a prolonged period should have a levy applied to them that forces the owners to either occupy them, sell them or have them removed from their ownership at below the market value. It's a disgrace that last year it was reported that in Dublin city alone there were 31,000 vacant housing united, with over 6,000 being vacant for over 5 years, and nothing has been done about it.

There already is a levy applied to derelict sites / buildings. You can read the full details here. It's essentially a 3% levy on the market value of the building for every year it remains on the derelict site list.

Dublin City Council have been slow to add sites to the derelict list, although they have pointed out that people are slow to report derelict buildings. How many people here have contacted DCC to report a derelict building?

There is also an issue in so far as some buildings are owned by people who have little attachment to the building. In some cases DCC doesn't even know who owns the building and when they do it can be hard to force a sale. Property rights are protected in the constitution so you can't seize buildings.

Ipso

Take back Trinity sound like a real brain trust.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

some people will always be incapable of housing themselves

Is housing them in Dublin City Centre at everyone else's expense the solution?

Yes. That's how a society works.

Sierra Oscar

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

There already is a levy applied to derelict sites / buildings. You can read the full details here. It's essentially a 3% levy on the market value of the building for every year it remains on the derelict site list.

Dublin City Council have been slow to add sites to the derelict list, although they have pointed out that people are slow to report derelict buildings. How many people here have contacted DCC to report a derelict building?

There is also an issue in so far as some buildings are owned by people who have little attachment to the building. In some cases DCC doesn't even know who owns the building and when they do it can be hard to force a sale. Property rights are protected in the constitution so you can't seize buildings.

The practice of buying a protected building and leaving it til it falls down derelict needs to be nipped in the bud.

City Arts Centre to give but one example.

Chips Lovell

There's a good conversation to be had about social and affordable housing, but it won't be had here because there isn't enough space between the grandstanders on one side claiming anyone who can't find a home is a waster and grandstanders on the other claiming that it can all be solved by throwing up acres of new social houses overnight.

Just because there are some chancers protesting, doesn't mean every homeless person is a chancer.

Getting it right is hard, costs lots of money, and takes lots of time. Anyone who thinks its as simple as repeating the 1930's programme is away with the fairies.

Subcomandante Marcos

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

There already is a levy applied to derelict sites / buildings. You can read the full details here. It's essentially a 3% levy on the market value of the building for every year it remains on the derelict site list.

Dublin City Council have been slow to add sites to the derelict list, although they have pointed out that people are slow to report derelict buildings. How many people here have contacted DCC to report a derelict building?

There is also an issue in so far as some buildings are owned by people who have little attachment to the building. In some cases DCC doesn't even know who owns the building and when they do it can be hard to force a sale. Property rights are protected in the constitution so you can't seize buildings.

This only applies to direct buildings though, of the 31,000 vacant properties in Dublin last year the vast majority of the were perfectly habitable.

sexmag

If theese people really want to do something or the people want to make a point why don't they occupy the less than half empty at peak time church's around the country?

The church have so much property around this country it's insane and they don't even pay taxes

Make the government take them back and turn them into social housing

lawred2

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I would start with those owned by the state. Then I would introduce incentives to stop derelict and vacant buildings being left to deteriorate.  As you cannot seize private property, obviously.

How many are owned by the state?

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. That's how a society works.

In Dublin City Centre? That's how society works?

LuckyLloyd

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Did you read the article? It's a slum if these buildings are being used to house multiple people to a room in dormitory style arrangements, as has been the case for several of the other buildings in the Dublin 1 area which have been the subject of this kind of protest.

In any circumstance, pressure needs to be applied to scumbag landlords taking advantage of vulnerable people and flouting regulations that aim to maintain basic human rights. You can bet good money that Mr.Divine likes to do business with foreign nationals with less than perfect English who are unlikely to fully understand their rights or have the confidence to pursue same.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

There is a huge problem with vacant properties in the city, I am not sure this is the best way to do anything about it.  It needs to be addressed though, you don't see falling down houses in prime areas in other cities.
Could there not be some sort of penalty for leaving houses vacant for a long period of time which would increase the supply of housing and reduce rent. Its crazy having unused buildings in the centre of the city.

And whataboutery to this extremely simple and correct point of analysis needs to be headed off at the pass. The government needs to undertake other actions to address the housing crisis but the issue of vacancy needs to be addressed directly in of itself.

seamus wrote: »

Ah, you do.

Asset speculation is as old as humanity, but that doesn't make it OK. It's a scourge of free market principles, and is the cause of virtually every non-war economic crash in history; supply of resources being artificially constricted to drive up prices, then crashing again when everyone realises it's a pyramid scheme.

We should definitely be taxing the ever loving fnck out of it.

If you have a rental property, then there should be a tax on that property which is equivalent to the CSO-calculated price increase for the previous year, plus 10%.
For example, if the price increased by 5% last year, then the tax payable on that property this year is 5.5% of the market value.

If you can prove that it was rented for 10 months of the previous 12, you can claim a 100% exemption. 6 months, you get a 50% exemption.

Pretty straightforward. If you don't want the property anymore and can't sell it or can't afford the hassle, then you can ask the local council to buy it, who'll value it and pay you that value without negotiation.

Excellent suggestions.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

There already is a levy applied to derelict sites / buildings. You can read the full details here. It's essentially a 3% levy on the market value of the building for every year it remains on the derelict site list.

Dublin City Council have been slow to add sites to the derelict list, although they have pointed out that people are slow to report derelict buildings. How many people here have contacted DCC to report a derelict building?

There is also an issue in so far as some buildings are owned by people who have little attachment to the building. In some cases DCC doesn't even know who owns the building and when they do it can be hard to force a sale. Property rights are protected in the constitution so you can't seize buildings.

Property rights are not absolute however, as mandated by a clause in that very section of the constitution. They certainly should not be impinging upon other basic rights and aspirations protected by the constitution anyway.

Arghus wrote: »

As someone who recently had to go through the nightmare of being being evicted - the house we were renting in was part of a big purchase of about twenty houses on one street by one property developer, to be sold to be "renovated", place is still sitting empty months later - and go to through the equal nightmare of finding rental accommodation, I have to say I've a degree of sympathy for what they're protesting about.

Of course I'd have qualms about their methods and I'd wonder what real world effect the occupation will have, but at the same time they are drawing some attention to the fact that it isn't just a case of low levels of construction that are to blame, property hoarding is rife and is having a detrimental effect on Irish society. And it's going to continue, with the full support of the law and a political culture that's slow to do anything about it. Aided and abetted by a lot of the unthinking attitudes on full display here.

As usual there's been the typical pages of tripe posted of people banging on about "hippy scum" and the like. Use your brains you idiots and start living in the real world. The housing situation in this country is a fcking disgrace and it seems like a lot of you, typically, still somehow haven't really grasped it.

Follow the money, as always. The current situation is going to benefit certain types of people, and some of those people are politicians or people of influence. This thread has been ridiculous, but the extreme bitter divides represented within are an able example of how 'divide and conquer' works so effectively.

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

The practice of buying a protected building and leaving it til it falls down derelict needs to be nipped in the bud.

City Arts Centre to give but one example.

Leaving aside the current crisis, that practice robs the city and the country of legacy and history all to monetarily benefit an individual property owner. Absolutely scandalous.

jam_mac_jam

lawred2 wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I would start with those owned by the state. Then I would introduce incentives to stop derelict and vacant buildings being left to deteriorate.  As you cannot seize private property, obviously.

How many are owned by the state?

I have no idea.

whisky_galore

Deleted User wrote: »

The practice of buying a protected building and leaving it til it falls down derelict needs to be nipped in the bud.

City Arts Centre to give but one example.

Some of them mysteriously burn down too.

andekwarhola

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

There is a huge problem with vacant properties in the city, I am not sure this is the best way to do anything about it.  It needs to be addressed though, you don't see falling down houses in prime areas in other cities.
Could there not be some sort of penalty for leaving houses vacant for a long period of time which would increase the supply of housing and reduce rent. Its crazy having unused buildings in the centre of the city.

Successive governments/ local authorities have essentially given up building social housing in lieu of pushing the issue to the private property market. Then, bizarrely, allowing property developers to buy out of social housing obligations while still not building social housing.

Nor have they tried to curb the amount of rental properties being diverted into the Airbnb sector.

They've essentially made general housing needs a private property market issue.

It's a bit rich to then go and rabble rousing after people who might have a single vacant property, for any number of reasons, and bully them into putting it into the rental sector.

sexmag

sexmag wrote: »

"STATEMENT FROM SUMMERHILL OCCUPATION:

What:
35 Summerhill Parade is a property owned by Pat and PJ O'Donnell (owners of POD, and sponsors of the Clare GAA team). This house is part of a cluster of properties on Summerhill Parade owned by the O'Donnell family. All properties had similar issues with overcrowding, poor conditions and dodgy cash in-hand dealings. A total of 120 tenants lived between the five properties, each paying between €350-€450 for a bed in a room of 6-8 people. In May, a mass eviction occurred between the five properties resulting in these 120 tenants being illegally evicted over the duration of a week.

The O'Donnell's bought Aldborough House, a derelict Georgian mansion, in 2016 and have recently got approval to develop this site into office spaces. No consideration was given for the local community and their needs in these plans. There have been push from the owners to create slum conditions in the area as a means to run housing prices down and buy up bargain properties to redevelop - after all, the workers in the O'Donnell's new, plush office spaces are going to need equally plush places to live. It's a fine example of gentrification in action.

Since the evictions in May, these properties have sat empty while the housing crisis worsens.

Housing and community activists today have occupied the property of Summerhill Parade because enough is enough, Pat O'Donnell should not be allowed sit on these potential homes.

Rent hikes, evictions, poor housing conditions; people stuck in overcrowded homes, living in bunkbeds, or packed into their relative's homes; people couch-surfing, sleeping rough, living in hostels, hotels and direct provision - we hear about these horrendous situations every day now, we all know somebody who is affected. And yet, those in power sit on their hands. There is no political will to make real, meaningful change to our housing crisis.

Our immediate demand:
Is that the houses owned by Pat O’Donnell on Summerhill Parade be compulsory purchased by Dublin City Council and given to the local community. We want to highlight that private, vacant properties can, and should be put into public ownership.

All vacant land and properties should be put under public ownership for.

We call for people to take action and get involved in the housing movement, a wider demand of homes for all. Those interested in setting up similar occupations, please get in touch with the page.

The housing crisis is not a natural disaster; we do not need to accept that this is simply the way it is. But things won’t get better on their own - action is needed, by people and for people."




In my book this is called blackmail, trying to force someone to sell their property. These guys sound like gangsters running a protection racket and telling people to set up their own is inciting criminal activity and should be punished as such.

Also "We want to highlight that private, vacant properties can, and should be put into public ownership" bit gets me the best, so if someone has a holiday home they use once a year should that be put up too?? Gangsters

I guess they didn’t know that it was the fire brigade who insisted that the property be vacated immediately and that the electricity be disconnected due to the hazardous nature of the building?

hatrickpatrick

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Anyone who thinks its as simple as repeating the 1930's programme is away with the fairies.

Can you actually explain specifically why though? Why wouldn't it work, specifically?

suicide_circus

I hate crusties.....but I also hate slum lords

Maxpfizer

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It seems like it takes extreme actions to raise awareness, let's hope they get noticed. The house is fine, no one was living in it.

Sounds like someone wasn't paying attention in consent class.

hatrickpatrick

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Sounds like someone wasn't paying attention in consent class.

Not everyone ideologically believes in absolute property rights extending to properties other than one's home. You may not agree, but it's a fairly widespread ideology so to pretend that it's just illegitimate is ridiculous.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess they didn’t know that it was the fire brigade who insisted that the property be vacated immediately and that the electricity be disconnected due to the hazardous nature of the building?

It doesn't seem like it from this article from May. Rightly or wrongly it reads like someone claimed they had authorisation from the fire brigade for an immediate vacating of the building, but had no paperwork or a member of the FB to back this up.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/everyone-needs-to-get-the-fk-out-up-to-40-tenants-living-in-slumlike-conditions-threatened-with-eviction-36871811.html

I'm not even sure this is the way the Fire Brigade operate anyway - much more likely is that they demand that certain minimum safety standards are put in place within 24 hours, and that further improvements are made within a week. Some or all people may have to leave during that time, but the decision to permanently evict is the landlords decision.

sexmag

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not everyone ideologically believes in absolute property rights extending to properties other than one's home. You may not agree, but it's a fairly widespread ideology so to pretend that it's just illegitimate is ridiculous.

Aye but you can bet the owner of that property does believe what's theirs is theirs and these people are doing nothing but breaking into their home.

I wonder what will happen if the owner shows up and just decides to walk in

Yer Da sells Avon

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

grandstanders on the other claiming that it can all be solved by throwing up acres of new social houses overnight.

It can't be solved overnight, but the Workers' Party has some very interesting ideas on building tens of thousands of affordable houses (for rent) over a five year period. Their timescale might be optimistic, but the policy itself is better than anything I've seen from any of the other parties.

The proposed monthly rents are in line with current social housing rates, based on ability to pay, but 50% of the houses would be provided to people who currently struggle hugely to pay rent or a mortgage, but are earning too much to qualify for social housing.

Chips Lovell

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can you actually explain specifically why though? Why wouldn't it work, specifically?

The very brief answer is:

1. The entire project began in the 20s and finished in the 40s. If you told people now that you could fix social housing but it would take 20 years, it wouldn't wash with voters.

2. Building massive swathes of entirely social housing no longer works (and it only worked in the 30s if you really have your rose tinted glasses on). Later efforts were a disaster. Heroin, crime and unemployment turned them into black spots that took decades to turnaround. North Clondalkin in the 1980s is a classic case in point. What does work is small developments of social housing, mixed with private housing. Takes longer to build, is more expensive per unit, but works much better at creating stable communities.

3. The standards of the thirties wouldn't be accepted today. Back then families of 8, 10, 12, got two (or three if they were lucky) bedroom houses. You wouldn't be let do that today and if you tried it there'd be uproar.

I'm not saying more social housing shouldn't be built. I'm all for it. I'm saying it's not as easy or cheap as some people make out.

hatrickpatrick

sexmag wrote: »

Aye but you can bet the owner of that property does believe what's theirs is theirs and these people are doing nothing but breaking into their home.

I wonder what will happen if the owner shows up and just decides to walk in

I'm not denying that. I'm agreeing with others that the state should forcefully acquire, through compulsory purchase, properties which are either unoccupied or being used for unlawful purposes such as slum landlording, and use those properties to build high density housing a la the developments built by Herbert Simms.

Nobody has managed to tell me specifically why this wouldn't work.

Yer Da sells Avon

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

2. Building massive swathes of entirely social housing no longer works (and it only worked in the 30s if you really have your rose tinted glasses on). Later efforts were a disaster. Heroin, crime and unemployment turned them into black spots that took decades to turnaround. North Clondalkin in the 1980s is a classic case in point. What does work is small developments of social housing, mixed with private housing. Takes longer to build, is more expensive per unit, but works much better at creating stable communities.

It would work if, rather than mixing it with private housing, the criteria for social housing was broadened to include people on higher wages, many of whom can barely afford to either rent or buy without seriously stretching themselves.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It doesn't seem like it from this article from May. Rightly or wrongly it reads like someone claimed they had authorisation from the fire brigade for an immediate vacating of the building, but had no paperwork or a member of the FB to back this up.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/everyone-needs-to-get-the-fk-out-up-to-40-tenants-living-in-slumlike-conditions-threatened-with-eviction-36871811.html

I'm not even sure this is the way the Fire Brigade operate anyway - much more likely is that they demand that certain minimum safety standards are put in place within 24 hours, and that further improvements are made within a week. Some or all people may have to leave during that time, but the decision to permanently evict is the landlords decision.

Very interesting. I’m sure that somewhere between the two lies the truth.

hatrickpatrick

sexmag wrote: »

"We want to highlight that private, vacant properties can, and should be put into public ownership" bit gets me the best, so if someone has a holiday home they use once a year should that be put up too?? Gangsters

If it's in a high demand area during a housing crisis, then absolutely, 100%. Disused property in that scenario is no different to wasting water during a drought. Land is a national resource just like water, it should not be treated as a private asset.

sexmag wrote: »

If theese people really want to do something or the people want to make a point why don't they occupy the less than half empty at peak time church's around the country?

The church have so much property around this country it's insane and they don't even pay taxes

Make the government take them back and turn them into social housing

I would be 100% in favour of such a move. Church lands should be nationalised and the proceeds used to pay for abuse compensation as far as I'm concerned.

Chips Lovell

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It would work if, rather than mixing it with private housing, the criteria for social housing was broadened to include people on higher wages, many of whom can barely afford to either rent or buy without seriously stretching themselves.

Hmmm, I'd be more gone on 1/3 social, 1/3 affordable, and 1/3 private for any publicly owned development. Having some private owners gives a core of people rooted to the area. You shouldn't see them as the bogeyman. Every new owner occupier takes a little less pressure of the rental sector.

hatrickpatrick

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It would work if, rather than mixing it with private housing, the criteria for social housing was broadened to include people on higher wages, many of whom can barely afford to either rent or buy without seriously stretching themselves.

I'd totally approve of this, and in fact I'd argue that this has been necessary and ignored for a ridiculously long time.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If it's in a high demand area during a housing crisis, then absolutely, 100%. Disused property in that scenario is no different to wasting water during a drought. Land is a national resource just like water, it should not be treated as a private asset.



I would be 100% in favour of such a move. Church lands should be nationalised and the proceeds used to pay for abuse compensation as far as I'm concerned.

Say that vacant private house belongs to your granny, who’s got to spend some time recuperating in a nursing home following an illness and hopes to eventually return home? Or that it was left to a relative who intends retiring there some time in the future?
Who decides which home to commandeer? Paul Murphy? (Some interesting videos on his Facebook page, btw).

hatrickpatrick

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The very brief answer is:

1. The entire project began in the 20s and finished in the 40s. If you told people now that you could fix social housing but it would take 20 years, it wouldn't wash with voters.

It's certainly be better than the current practise of doing absolutely sweet f*ck all, though.

2. Building massive swathes of entirely social housing no longer works (and it only worked in the 30s if you really have your rose tinted glasses on). Later efforts were a disaster. Heroin, crime and unemployment turned them into black spots that took decades to turnaround. North Clondalkin in the 1980s is a classic case in point. What does work is small developments of social housing, mixed with private housing. Takes longer to build, is more expensive per unit, but works much better at creating stable communities.

I agree with creating mixed tenure developments. I just believe that the council / state should be the landlord and charge below market rates, not renting for profit but for maintanence costs etc.

3. The standards of the thirties wouldn't be accepted today. Back then families of 8, 10, 12, got two (or three if they were lucky) bedroom houses. You wouldn't be let do that today and if you tried it there'd be uproar.

If the alternative is ridiculous numbers of people being homeless or essentially in poverty once rent is deducted from take home pay, surely the "lesser of two evils" mentality has to prevail here?

Most young people I know would happily live in a tiny studio apartment provided it didn't cost four figures per month to rent the feckin' thing.

hatrickpatrick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Say that vacant private house belongs to your granny, who’s got to spend some time recuperating in a nursing home following an illness and hopes to eventually return home?

Or that it was left to a relative who intends retiring there some time in the future?
Who decides which home to commandeer? Paul Murphy? (Some interesting videos on his Facebook page, btw).

Those properties should be rented out by he council during he period that they will be empty for, and returned to the homeowner at the end of the period, when it's a defined and temporary vacancy. It's not as complicated as you're suggesting.

Donald Trump

I know someone working abroad for a few years with a decent apartment reasonably close to the city centre. She doesn't travel back and forth very often but she has not rented her place in Dublin. It has been empty for the past 3 years.

I thought it was crazy and I asked her would she not rent it. She says it's too much of a risk - she would be terrified of getting tenants in who would stop paying rent, wreck the place and then refuse to vacate. Then she'd be stuck going through the courts for years to get rid of them. Even if she came back to Dublin, she'd be worried she wouldn't be able to get them out and might have to rent another place while pricks were basically "squatting" in her place for free

That's the downside of skewing rights too far in favour of tenants. If she felt that the courts etc. would offer her fair protection, she probably would have rented it. And you'd have one more apartment added to the supply.

Chips Lovell

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the alternative is ridiculous numbers of people being homeless or essentially in poverty once rent is deducted from take home pay, surely the "lesser of two evils" mentality has to prevail here?

Most young people I know would happily live in a tiny studio apartment provided it didn't cost four figures per month to rent the feckin' thing.

I'm not talking about young people living in studio apartments though. Do you honestly believe that a family living in emergency accommodation would actually accept what was on offer in the thirties? There'd (rightly) be uproar. If tried to say it was "the lesser of two evils", homeless campaigners would be looking for your head.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Latest reports is that they are still there and no one has intervened.

It shows a need to me for better laws around property defense and the use of force to regain ownership of your property.

Uriel.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Those properties should be rented out by he council during he period that they will be empty for, and returned to the homeowner at the end of the period, when it's a defined and temporary vacancy. It's not as complicated as you're suggesting.

It's not complicated in an ideal world, but you're around long enough now to know that's not the case (an ideal world) even if you are hell bent on refusing to see it.

The councils wash their hands of all problems as soon as the problem manifests and we all know that there's a big cohort of people that we are talking about here that will cause the kind of problems that have put landlords off engaging with council rental schemes and rent allowance tenants, long before this recent boom in rental prices.

Yer Da sells Avon

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Hmmm, I'd be more gone on 1/3 social, 1/3 affordable, and 1/3 private for any publicly owned development. Having some private owners gives a core of people rooted to the area. You shouldn't see them as the bogeyman. Every new owner occupier takes a little less pressure of the rental sector.

Security of tenure would equally root a huge core of people to the area. I think it would be better to, first of all, cater for those who don't really want to take out a mortgage, but currently feel that they have no choice because they want a level of security that the private rental sector can't provide. And private ownership doesn't provide any security if your circumstances change and you can no longer afford the mortgage. At least with the Workers' Party's proposals, a decrease in earnings would be accompanied by a proportional decrease in rent.

Kitty6277

sexmag wrote: »

I believe and I could be wrong, unless the owner of the house reports it the guards won't do anything, they may be unaware of this at the moment

Ah okay, well that would make sense as to why they're just allowed to stay there for the time being